Cahill Iron Works v. Pemberton
New York Court of Common Pleas
At chambers. Action by the Cahill Iron Works, a foreign corporation organized under the laws of the state of Tennessee, against Frank E. Pemberton, doing business in the city of Chattanooga, Tenn., under the name of Frank E. Pemberton & Co., to recover the sum of $1,347.64, with interest on $703.99 from the 15th day of July, 1891, and on the sum of $608.50 from the 1st day of August, 1891. Defendant demurred to the complaint, and plaintiff now moves for judgment on the…
Read the full summary
At chambers. Action by the Cahill Iron Works, a foreign corporation organized under the laws of the state of Tennessee, against Frank E. Pemberton, doing business in the city of Chattanooga, Tenn., under the name of Frank E. Pemberton & Co., to recover the sum of $1,347.64, with interest on $703.99 from the 15th day of July, 1891, and on the sum of $608.50 from the 1st day of August, 1891. Defendant demurred to the complaint, and plaintiff now moves for judgment on the demurrer as frivolous. Denied. The complaint, omitting the formal parts, is as follows: For a first cause of action: (3) That…
1Opinion of the CourtBischoff, J.
Defendant demurred to each of the two causes
of action which are set forth, in the complaint, alleging, as the specific ground of the demurrer, that the facts pleaded are insufficient in law to constitute a cause of action; and in considering the demurrer we may properly assume the truth of the allegations of the complaint. Cutler v. Wright, 22 N. Y. 472; Milliken v. Telegraph Co., 110 N. Y. 403, 18 N. E. 251. Each of the causes of action is upon a written guaranty, which is alleged totidem vérbis, and is void under the law of this state because the writing does not express a consideration for…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Whitford v. . the Panama Railroad CompanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1861
- Milliken v. Western Union Telegraph Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1888
- Bogardus v. Trinity ChurchNew York Court of Chancery · 1833
- Holmes v. BroughtonNew York Supreme Court · 1833
- Pratt v. . Hudson River Railroad CompanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1860
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Smith v. Compania Litografica De La HabanaNew York Supreme Court · 1926
- Harmon v. Alfred Peats Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1926
- Cahill Iron Works v. PembertonNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1893
- Schisgal v. WronkowAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1896